Generally speaking, common sense dictates that when seeking legal advice, the sensible thing to do is to take it and act on it. I say generally speaking for to accept everything a lawyer may pronounce upon is to bring about a juristocracy (rule by judges/lawyers).
Up till fairly recently I had eschewed “breakfast television” preferring some peace and quite at the start of my day. However, the recent turbulations in the British state caused me to stream (from YouTube) GB News onto my top end 55 inch TV that has more tech on it than you can throw a stick at!
This morning, the Right Honourable Esther McVey, the Member for Tatton and her husband the Honourable Philip Davies, the Member for Shipley were in the GB News studio presenting their two hour current affairs news programme; before presumably doing their afternoon jobs as MPs!
One of the subjects raised and discussed was the issue of sexual offences against women and the numbers of those convicted following arrest and charging – and also the length of time taken from arrest and conviction (or acquittal).
Interviewed (from Warsaw) was the former Supreme Court Judge Lord Sumption (above) who made some sagacious comments upon the proposed reforms in Scotland to allow judge only trials. Lord Sumption commented that many defendants charged with sexual offences would prefer a judge only trial as they would be advised in many cases (by their legal team) that their chances of acquittal would be greater than with a jury. Lord Sumption gave as the reasons for this the typical jury’s approach to their assessment of evidence and how it differs from a judge’s. Lord Sumption drew the presenters (and by extension the viewer’s) attention to the importance of the assessment of very old evidence (especially witness statements) in what are described as “historic cases”.
Sexual offences are often very difficult to prove (“beyond all reasonable doubt” when the evidence is largely “he said / she said” and that forensic evidence attesting strongly to one side or the other being absent) when the case can be decades old.
In a hypothetical case of a man charged with rape when the offence was said to have taken place fifteen years ago and the alleged victim had only recently reported the offence to the police and the CPS are reliant upon witness recollections and there is no forensic evidence whatsoever and the defence was based either on the assertion that the act took place but was consensual OR that the act did not take place at all.
Although such hypothetical cases are very very rare there are more cases of sexual assault reported and taken to prosecution. Often these are based on numbers of women coming forward with similar allegations about the same man.
In such hypothetical scenarios jury’s will often decide guilt on the basis of numbers: that several women have all stated (under oath) that they were assaulted but they only have the accused’s word that he did not.
Hypothetically, this could mean that a number of women would be prepared to break the law (by committing perjury and perverting the course of justice) to falsely accuse a man of sexual offences to ruin his life and see him imprisoned.
Since we are in the realms of hypothesis here allow me to describe a hypothetical scenario.
There are two men, Mr Rouge and Mr Upright. Both are very rich rivals in a business. Rouge (a thoroughly dishonest man completely without principles) wants Upright (a principled and honest man) out of the way as he would frustrate Rouge’s plans for a multi-national company. Millions – even billions or £/$ are at stake!
Rouge hatches a cunning, devious and wicked plan. Exodus 20:16 (Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour) is something that Rouge attaches no importance to! If questioned, Rouge would point out that Upright lives several miles away from him and therefore is not his neighbour. Of course, we all know that the Almighty is of a somewhat different opinion!
Rouge, using corrupt private investigators researches Upright’s past and these agents contact a number of women who attended university at the same time as Upright and were on the same campus. The agents discover that these women – unlike Upright – have not prospered financially and are all in financial difficulty. The agents bribe these women with what to them appears to be huge life-changing amounts of money. The bribes are for the women making “historic” allegations of rape against Upright – a man they never actually met or if they did, only briefly and that there was no contact of a sexual nature whatsoever between them and him.
The accusations are duly reported to police and the police arrest and question Upright. Upright strenuously denies the allegations but having rejected the duty solicitor’s advice to answer “no comment” to all the police questions, is charged with several offences of rape. In the Crown Court, Upright’s counsel argues strongly that there is no case to answer as there is nothing but the allegations themselves from the alleged victims and that no witnesses have come forward to testify that they ever saw Upright with any of the alleged victims.
Whilst this last point weighed heavily on the judge’s mind it weighed far less heavily on the minds of the jury and on a majority verdict (10:2) found Upright guilty of several counts of rape. Upright was duly sentenced to 15 years custody.
This travesty of justice achieved what Rouge wanted; not only to remove Upright from the board but to remove those supporters of Upright from the board.
Notwithstanding the above hypothetical account it MUST be stated that jury trial is one of the essentials of the British Constitution. This is because it is the citizen’s defence of an overbearing state.
I therefore make this proposal:
That we must reform our justice system fundamentally.
I propose there should be two separate judicial systems in England and also Wales (Scotland with it’s separate system is something for Scotland to deal with).
I propose:
#1: That we should bring back the Assize Courts but also retain the Crown Court system.
#2: That there would be no jury trails in the Crown Courts and that the Judge would sit with two assessors. These would be senior lay Magistrates.
#3: That judges for the Assize court would be elected by the public and no such judge could ever be employed as a Crown Court judge. Thus we would have two separate judiciaries – one elected the other appointed.
#4: That only Crown Court (and High Court) judges could be appointed to the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court.
#5: That when charged with an indictable offence the defendant would have the right to chose whether he (or she) be tried in the Assize or the Crown court. That if the defendant elects for trial by jury the CPS can only appeal the election if they can bring evidence of attempted jury tampering before a judge.
The FACT is that most non political defendants will be only too happy to appear in the Crown court and NOT the Assize court! Those determined to appear at the Assizes will be political defendants such as the “Just Stop Oil” protesters.
One of the reasons for the abolition of the Assize Courts was that the case load was proving too much for this ancient system. I do not think the Assize Courts will be overwhelmed with cases if these reforms are enacted. This for the simple reason that most ordinary criminals want to avoid conviction and if they are convicted, desire lenient punishment – not harsh!
That harsh punishments follow a system where judges are elected is amply demonstrated in the USA.
I will end with the quote below:
“To the rest of the world,” Hans Linde, a justice of the Oregon Supreme Court, since retired, said at a 1988 symposium on judicial selection, “American adherence to judicial elections is as incomprehensible as our rejection of the metric system.”
Please feel free to follow the links below:
GOTO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_incarceration_rate_with_other_countries
GOTO: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/world/americas/25iht-judge.4.13194819.html
GOTO: https://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_election_methods_by_state
GOTO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assizes
GOTO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sumption,_Lord_Sumption